[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1900-1902]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      LESSONS FROM THE VIETNAM WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana, my 
neighbor--wonderful points being made.
  I also want to call attention, Mr. Speaker, today to the 43rd 
anniversary of the release from imprisonment of American POWs from 
North Vietnam, among whom is our friend and hero here in the House, Sam 
Johnson.
  It was nice of staff to have a little reception for Congressman 
Johnson, and it is important to remember such things and try to learn 
from our mistakes. Because once again, in the last couple of weeks, I 
have heard references to mistakes of the past, like the lesson we 
should have learned from Vietnam, and then they get the lesson all 
wrong.
  We really didn't allow our military in Vietnam to win the war in 
Vietnam. Our pilots, our military operations, they could have won that 
war had they been allowed to do so.
  And the best indication of that is, after 7 years that Sam Johnson 
spent in just the most horrid conditions, horrendous torture, joined by 
other American heroes, like John McCain, who was 3 years at the Hanoi 
Hilton, where Sam Johnson was.
  I know he was shot down 5 years before the release, but it was only 
the last 3 years that he was placed in confinement there with, I 
believe, 10 others in the worst of the worst facilities, so bad that 
even today, after they cleaned up some of the torture chambers and 
tried to dress them up, they still won't let Americans go into the 
original Hanoi Hilton where they held 11, including Sam Johnson, in the 
most horrid of conditions.
  But the chronology, basically, in a nutshell, Nixon promised that he 
would, if he was reelected, he would get us out of Vietnam. So after 
reelection, they start the Paris peace talks--and I realize this is a 
gross generalization. They start the Paris peace talks. The North 
Vietnamese storm out. So Nixon orders carpet bombing of sites in North 
Vietnam that they had never been allowed to bomb before, including the 
areas in Hanoi itself.
  Sam has related personally that, when they first heard the first bomb 
drop, they thought: Wow, one might fall here. And then they were 
absolutely overjoyed that, finally, their country, the United States of 
America, was finally bringing the war to the North Vietnamese leaders. 
They had not done that.
  So there was massive bombing for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks, tremendous 
bombing, then the leaders came rushing back to the peace tables: Let's 
work this out.
  They got a peace accord agreed to. They agreed to provide all the 
names, locations of Americans who were killed in action or missing in 
action, provide all of the POWs. Apparently, American officials knew 
pretty quickly they didn't give us everybody, and that is another dark 
chapter in our history. But they agreed to release the POWs.
  As Sam Johnson and others were being released from the Hanoi Hilton, 
he said probably the cruelest of the officers there was laughing and 
smirking at the Americans as they were allowed to leave and go to a bus 
and, basically, said: You stupid Americans. If you had just bombed us 
for one more week, we would have had to surrender unconditionally.
  Yes, that is right. The lesson of Vietnam should have been that we 
should never, ever put our military in harm's way without giving them 
all of the equipment and ordnance they need to win and the order to 
win. If we are not willing to give them rules of engagement that allow 
them to win, they should not be sent.
  Yet, since this administration has been in office, there have been 
three to four times more American military lives lost.
  I am told by many in the military, because of the rules of 
engagement, because of where they are placed, without being able to 
properly defend themselves, that, under Commander in Chief Obama, three 
to four times more military members, American military members, have 
given their lives, their last full measure of devotion, than were lost 
during the 7\1/4\ years in which the war in Afghanistan raged at its 
highest under Commander in Chief Bush. The difference is you had one 
Commander in Chief that gave them more authority to win and a second, a 
later Commander in Chief, that tied their hands behind their backs.
  So that brings us to where we are today, 43 years after Sam Johnson 
and other American POWs were released from North Vietnam. The real 
lesson of Vietnam still hasn't been learned because we have still got 
American military members being killed abroad, in Afghanistan, without 
giving them the rules of engagement to protect themselves.
  And if that were the end of the story, that would be bad enough; but 
it is even worse when our military members have been subjected to the 
examples of having American military members punished, sent to prison 
if they dared to put the safety and lives of their men as the first 
consideration of their actions and their orders.
  So we have a lieutenant in Leavenworth who, when an Afghan on a 
motorcycle refused to honor the signs, the orders to stop, refused to 
stop or even slow down when shots were fired in his direction, and so 
you have to give some credit to this administration and the

[[Page 1901]]

military leaders and the orders that make their way from the top down 
and the rules of engagement as to why, just in recent weeks, we have 
lost military members when someone on a motorcycle rode up and exploded 
themselves.
  They knew. Our American military that died in that suicide motorcycle 
bombing, they knew what had happened to the lieutenant. All of our 
people in Afghanistan know what happened when this administration makes 
an example out of an officer who dares to put the safety of his own 
people uppermost in his mind.
  It is a sad time in America. Our allies notice that, if we will not 
even take the life, the treasure of our own American military more 
seriously, then how can they possibly put their faith in us that we 
will keep our word and protect them? They have seen what happened in 
Ukraine.

                              {time}  1330

  They didn't really lift a finger to help the Ukrainians against the 
Russian aggression. In fact, after Russian aggression against Georgia, 
President Bush put some sanctions in place. Relations got more chilled 
between the United States and Russia because of the egregious, unfair 
actions of Russia in Georgia.
  The first thing this President did was send Hillary Clinton over with 
a plastic, red button. They put the wrong interpretation on it. They 
meant to say a reset button, and they got the wrong language on there.
  The message was very clear to the Russians: Ah, President Obama and 
Hillary Clinton don't care if we violate their allies. They don't care 
if we invade their friends. They don't care. They want a reset button 
and basically have apologized for getting upset that we in Russia 
invaded Georgia. So Hillary Clinton and President Obama are fine with 
us invading other places.
  What were they supposed to think that this administration would do 
when they invaded Ukraine? Well, they guessed right, that this 
administration wouldn't really do anything about it.
  Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I forgot. This administration did do 
something about the Russian aggression. In fact, the President 
delivered it. He didn't know the microphone was picking him up when he 
said, basically:
  Tell Vladimir that I will have a whole lot more flexibility after the 
election.
  So they got the messages. We can pretty much abuse and invade, 
whatever we care to do. It is outrageous what has happened to American 
reputation abroad.
  So today is the 43rd anniversary. We salute Sam Johnson and all those 
POWs that were released today from North Vietnam. I wish we had learned 
the lesson from the horrors that they experienced.
  In fact, there is an article here by Anne Bayefsky. It originally 
appeared on FOX News. This was released February 11, 2016, by Human 
Rights Voices:
  ``There is a dangerous scam gaining traction at the United Nations, 
backstopped by the White House.''
  That is our U.S. President's House.
  ``It's called `violent extremism.' Given the U.N.'s long and 
undistinguished history of being unable to define terrorism, and an 
American President who chokes on the words `radical Islamic terrorism,' 
pledges to combat `violent extremism' have become all the rage.
  ``It turns out that the terminological fast one is a lethal 
diplomatic dance that needs to be deconstructed, and quickly.
  ``In 1999, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation''--that is the 
OIC--``enemy'' insert parenthetically, Mr. Speaker--the OIC, 
Organization of Islamic Cooperation, has all of the Islamic nations 
except the United States included in it, and they also include the 
Palestinians that are in the nation of Israel.
  I always get confused whether the OIC has 50 states and we have in 
the United States 57 States or whether the OIC has 57 states and we 
have 50. So I shared that with our President when he was running for 
the Presidency as he got confused whether the U.S. has 57 states--no, 
that is the OIC--and the United States has 50. It is confusing.
  The article states: ``In 1999, the Organization of Islamic 
Cooperation .  .  . adopted an `anti-terrorism' treaty stating that 
`armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, 
and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination .  .  . shall 
not be considered a terrorist crime.'
  ``In practice, that means it is open season on all Israelis, as well 
as Americans and Europeans who get in the way. Each of the 56 Islamic 
states''--actually, the OIC is 57 because they claim Palestine--``and 
what the UN labels the `State of Palestine,' is a party to this treaty.
  ``The September 11 terror attacks then launched a growth industry in 
U.N. counter-terrorism chit-chat and paraphernalia.
  ``Year-after-year, Islamic states have prevented the adoption of a UN 
Comprehension Convention Against Terrorism by refusing to abandon their 
claim that certain targets are exempt.
  ``In 2001 the U.N. Security Council created the Counter-Terrorism 
Committee. But it is unable to name a state sponsor of terrorism. In 
fact, from 2002 to 2003, Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, was a 
member.
  ``In 2005 the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, once chaired by 
Colonel Qaddafi's Libya, created the U.N. expert on `the promotion and 
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering 
terrorism'--as if countering terror is not about protecting human 
rights.
  ``In 2006 the General Assembly adopted a Global Counter-Terrorism 
Strategy. It manages to cast terrorists as victims. `Pillar Number One' 
starts by worrying about `conditions conducive to the spread of 
terrorism.' `Youth unemployment,' for instance, purportedly results in 
`the subsequent sense of victimization that propels extremism and the 
recruitment of terrorists.'
  ``In 2011 the U.N. established the Counter-Terrorism Center--at the 
initiative of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis threw $100 million at the 
venture and became chair of the `Advisory Board.' Saudi financing of 
radical charities and `academic' exercises around the world are somehow 
left out of Center events on investigating and prosecuting terror 
financing.
  ``Integral to the-best-defense-is-a-good-offence routine, has been 
the constant unsubstantiated allegation of an `Islamophobia' pandemic.
  ``For the first decade of the 21st century, the Islamophobia charge 
was hurled in UN resolutions on the `defamation' of Islam or the 
`defamation of religion.' Defamation meant the freedoms of human beings 
should be trumped by the `rights' of `religion.'
  ``In 2009 `defamation' was repackaged by the General Assembly as 
`human rights and cultural diversity.' Ever since, the over 100 
countries of the `Non-aligned movement' vote against Western states and 
demand the freedoms of human beings be trumped by `cultural diversity.' 
And that's cultural diversity Iran-style. In December 2015, the UN 
resolution praised Tehran's Centre for Human Rights and Cultural 
Diversity--the brainchild of former
Iranian President and well-known human rights aficionado Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad.
  ``In the last six weeks alone, Islamic states have staged two UN 
meetings focusing on `Islamophobia and inclusive societies,' and 
`countering xenophobia.' Two weeks ago, the servile Secretary-General 
Ban Ki-moon couldn't mention `antisemitism' on the anniversary of the 
liberation of Auschwitz without connecting it to `anti-Muslim bigotry.'
  ``Of course, the Islamophobia drumbeat skips right over the 
xenophobia, antisemitism, and exclusively that is endemic--and 
officially-sanctioned--in Islamic states.
  ``This is the substrate from which Ban Ki-moon has now manufactured a 
`Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism.' Introduced in January, 
the General Assembly is meeting on February 12, 2016 to push the plan 
forward.
  ``After one mention of `ISIL, Al-Qaeda and Boko Haram,' the Plan 
insists that violent extremism `does not arise in a vacuum. Narratives 
of grievance, actual or perceived injustice . . . become attractive.' 
`It is critical that

[[Page 1902]]

in responding to this threat,' stresses the Plan, that states be 
stopped from `overreacting.' Topping `conditions conducive to violent 
extremism' is `lack of socioeconomic opportunities.'''
  Mr. Speaker, this just shows the ignorance in the U.N. in propagating 
such a plan and the sheer naivete, if not outright intentional 
misleading, of those who would read their report.
  Lack of socioeconomic opportunities is not what caused one of the 
wealthier Islamists to put together and carry out a plan of attacking 
the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and, apparently, this Capitol. He 
was wealthy. So are many of those who are funding terrorism. It arises 
out of radical Islamic beliefs.
  Nobody should have to ever say: We know all Muslims don't believe 
this. It should go without saying. We know that. But for those that do, 
it is sheer idiocy to claim that Islam has nothing to do with the 
radical Islamic terrorism that is occurring.
  When you have one of the most world-renowned experts on Islam who has 
studied his whole life on the Koran, the holy Koran, as he would call 
it, the tenets and the pillars of Islam and even has his Ph.D., we are 
told, in Islamic studies from the University of Baghdad--Mr. Speaker, I 
think I forgot to mention he is the head of ISIS.
  The head of the Islamic State is one of the world's foremost experts 
on Islam, and he says the Islamic State is exactly what Islam is all 
about.
  I know, when I was a judge, people had to put on evidence as to 
educational background and study in an area so that I, as the judge, 
could determine whether that man or woman was actually an expert in 
their field.
  I would say the head of ISIS, with his educational background and his 
research and study, certainly is far more of an expert on Islam than 
our President or Valerie Jarrett or anybody in this administration.
  The article says: ``Here we go again. The bigots, fanatics and 
killers are allegedly driven by our annoying insistence on fighting 
back--which the Plan astonishingly calls `the cycle of insecurity and 
armed conflict.'
  ``As per usual in U.N. negotiations, the Obama administration has 
jumped on board while Islamic states are holding out for greater 
elaboration of their grievances and even more `nothing to do with 
religion or Islam' clauses.
  ``The U.N.'s idea of a win-win is an illusory `global partnership to 
confront this menace' that allows states to define violent extremism 
any which way they want: `This Plan of Action pursues a practical 
approach to preventing violent extremism, without venturing to address 
questions of definition.'
  ``Only U.N. con-artists could present refusing to identify a problem 
as the most practical way to solve it.
  ``More practically speaking, the latest Palestinian terror wave began 
by pumping bullets into a young mom and dad in front of their little 
kids for the crime of being Jews living and breathing on Arab-claimed 
land. In U.N. terminology, Eitam and Naama Henkin were `extremist 
settlers.'
  ``So to all you extremist lovers of liberty: beware the violent 
extremists in U.N. clothing, and the morally-challenged commanders in 
chief bringing up the rear.''
  Well written. We have got to wake up. We had another bombing. We have 
more violence. We hear from ISIS leaders that they have been able to 
get some of their best warriors into the United States and into Europe 
posing as refugees. We have the head of the FBI who warns all of us in 
the House and all of us in the Senate and says we have cases regarding 
the Islamic State in every State in the Union.

                              {time}  1345

  Still, we let the administration get away with turning a blind eye 
toward the real problem and say we need to welcome more and more 
refugees. We are told by the people who are in charge of the vetting: 
We will vet them, but we have no information really to vet them with, 
so, sure, there are going to be some terrorists come in.
  We have an obligation in this House, and those Senators at the other 
end of the hall, to our Constitution, and we are to provide for the 
common defense. We are supposed to provide that defense against all 
enemies--foreign and domestic.
  For those who don't know the Constitution well enough, there is no 
right by someone illegally in the United States to have a hearing 
before an article III Federal District Court. In fact, there is no 
District Court mentioned in article III. The only court mentioned is 
the Supreme Court. As my old constitutional law professor said, there 
is only one court in the country that owes its existence to the U.S. 
Constitution. Every other Federal Court, every other tribunal, and 
magistrate in the country owes its existence--that is a Federal 
entity--owes its existence to the United States Congress. We have the 
right to create them; we have the right to remove them.
  Our own military do not have a right to a United States District 
Court. Why? Because the Constitution says Congress has the full 
authority to create disciplinary systems for the military. That is why 
the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, was created.
  Why in the world should we have people in this administration 
advocating for people illegally in this country, people illegally in 
this country that want to do damage to America, and advocate that they 
have a right to a U.S. District Court that our own military heroes 
don't have a right to? The answer is: They don't have that right at 
all.
  There is an article: Female Suicide Bomber Pair Kill 58 in Nigerian 
Refugee Camp. Having been there and having wept with family members who 
have lost kids, had kids kidnapped, held, their little girls raped 
repeatedly for months now, and the best this administration does is 
start a little social media campaign: Bring Back Our Girls, are you 
kidding me?
  Give Nigeria all the Intel they need to wipe out Boko Haram. Let them 
do it.
  The Taliban was totally defeated between October of 2001 and February 
of 2002. Without one single American life lost, we had embedded 
military in Afghanistan, no lives lost, and the Taliban was totally 
routed by February. Then we did something that wasn't very smart. We 
began basically an occupation of Afghanistan. It hasn't worked out 
well.
  Here is an article: CIA Director Says Islamic Group Has Used, Can 
Make Chemical Weapons. It quotes Brennan on CBS News and Lehrer on 60 
Minutes as saying: The CIA believes the IS group has the ability to 
make small amounts of mustard and chlorine gas for weapons, and ``there 
are reports that ISIS has access to chemical precursors and munitions 
that they can use.''
  Mr. Speaker, we need to have learned our lesson, and we haven't. If 
this administration doesn't stand up, more lives will be needlessly 
lost.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________